tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251169725217291858.post1831888394075739101..comments2014-06-27T03:46:06.279-05:00Comments on Bear with me in a little foolishness...: Biblical Inerrancy & The Acting GodDavid Westfallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11953851924751274054noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251169725217291858.post-40875041341863152802013-06-06T04:14:01.892-05:002013-06-06T04:14:01.892-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Max Smarthttp://www.holybibleverse.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251169725217291858.post-29059832250349974572013-06-04T11:08:20.869-05:002013-06-04T11:08:20.869-05:00Hey David,
I appreciate your comments here.
&q...Hey David, <br /><br />I appreciate your comments here. <br /><br />&quot;The point I am making, I think, is simply that our faith does indeed have its grounding in the bible itself—in its basic historical accuracy, granted the difference between ancient and modern conventions of historiography—and that it is not for this reason anything less than faith in God himself.&quot; <br /><br />I think that you have honed in on the fundamental issue: modern conventions of historiography. In my perspective, classic theological liberalism and the doctrine of inerrancy that was forged in response both share the same presuppositions about historiography in the Bible. While you want to grant that a difference exists between modern and ancient conventions of historiography, I think that the significance of this difference is greater than those involved in the inerrancy debate are willing to admit. (I&#39;ll save my comments about how allegory is not always a bad thing, and can actually function within accounts of God&#39;s historical redemption ;-)<br /><br />While I personally don&#39;t subscribe to inerrancy, I tend to shy away from those who are very eager to deny inerrancy. In my mind, many who try to deny inerrancy end up buying into the terms of this late 19th/20th century debate and reproducing its assumptions about history and scientific accuracy within the Bible. &quot;In other words, my mom is a lot like the Bible.&quot; It&#39;s liberal statements like these (liberal in the classic sense of confining God and the Bible to human experience and reason) that make me shy away from many who are eager to deny inerrancy. When someone compares the Bible to their mom, you know that something has gone seriously amiss. <br /><br />Your emphasis on God&#39;s revelation being bound in his act (I&#39;m reformulating &quot;God&#39;s identity being bound in his act&quot; because I think this can potentially be misread to undermine the fact that God is utterly free, his act of creation/redemption was not something he NEEDED to do to fulfill himself but it was nevertheless fitting for the free/loving Trinitarian being that he is)...is very important. Karl Barth, in his Introduction to Evangelical Theology, said: &quot;the object of evangelical theology is God in the history of his deeds.&quot; In Section 2 on The Word, he continues: <br /><br />&quot;Theology responds to the Word which God has spoken, still speaks, and will speak again in the history of Jesus Christ which fulfills the history of Israel. To reverse the statement, theology responds to that Word spoken in the history of Israel which reaches its culmination in the history of Jesus Christ. As Israel proceeds toward Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ proceeds out of Israel, so the Gospel of God goes forth. It is precisely the particularity of the Gospel which is its universality. This is the good Word of the covenant of grace and peace established, upheld, accomplished, and fulfilled by God. It is his Word of the friendly communion between himself and man. The Word of God, therefore, is not the appearance of an idea of such a covenant and communion. It is the Logos of this history, the Logos, or Word, of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who, as such, is the Father of Jesus Christ. This Word, the Word of this history, is what evangelical theology must always hear, understand, and speak of anew. We shall now try to delineate what this history declares.&quot;<br /><br />History is crucial. God acted in space and time...the Word is not the appearance of ideas or ethical principles. But *what* kind of history is this? What Barth alludes to at the end of this passage is that we will need to develop a theological account of history in order to fully appreciate and do justice to the history being communicated in the Bible. In my mind, the &quot;scientific accuracy&quot; of modern historiography is what remains theologically unaccounted for. <br /><br />My two cents. <br /><br /><br /><br />ecclesiasticalgraffitihttp://ecclesiasticalgraffiti.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com